South Africa Case Law

Pamodzi Group Proprietary Limited and Another v National Empowerment Fund and Another (115576/2023)

Pamodzi Group Proprietary Limited and Another v National Empowerment Fund and Another (115576/2023) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1467 (15 December 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

115576/2023

Judge

Pearse AJ

The court found that the interim order granted on 4 December 2023 was not appealable, as the applicants failed to demonstrate why the interests of justice required reconsideration on appeal. The grounds of appeal were directed at the reasons for the order rather than the exercise of discretion or the terms of the order itself. The court held that urgency was properly established and condonation for procedural non-compliance was justified. There were no material disputes of fact requiring application of the Plascon-Evans rule; the Webster v Mitchell test was appropriate for interim relief. The…

Source excerpt

• Interim Interdict
• Leave To Appeal
• Urgent Application
• Board Governance
• Non Joinder
• Shareholder Rights

Kemm and Others v Minister of Energy and Others (88891/2018)

Kemm and Others v Minister of Energy and Others (88891/2018) [2019] ZAGPPHC 350 (16 August 2019)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

88891/2018

Judge

Mtati

The court found that the Minister's decision to remove the first and third applicants as directors of NECSA constituted administrative action as defined in PAJA, as it involved the implementation of national legislation and directly affected the applicants' rights. The Minister failed to comply with section 71 of the Companies Act by not affording the applicants a reasonable opportunity to make representations at a meeting before removal and did not properly consider their written submissions. The process was generic and predetermined, as evidenced by the Minister's letters and the rapid issu…

Source excerpt

• Removal Of Directors
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Principle Of Legality
• Precautionary Suspension
• Board Governance
• Judicial Review

Mthimunye-Bakoro v Petroleum Oil and Gas Corporation of South Africa (SOC) Limited and Another (12476/2015)

Mthimunye-Bakoro v Petroleum Oil and Gas Corporation of South Africa (SOC) Limited and Another (12476/2015) [2015] ZAWCHC 113; 2015 (6) SA 338 (WCC) (4 August 2015)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

12476/2015

Judge

Davis

The court held that the applicant, as the subject of the suspension, had a manifest conflict of interest and was lawfully excluded from board deliberations regarding her own suspension in terms of section 75 of the Companies Act and the company's articles of association. The applicant was given reasonable notice and an opportunity to make representations at the 13 July 2015 meeting, which satisfied the requirements of procedural fairness. The exclusion of the applicant from the deliberations and voting was justified and consistent with both statutory and common law principles of corporate gov…

Source excerpt

• Board Governance
• Conflict Of Interest
• Precautionary Suspension
• Companies Act Section 75
• Notice And Information Rights

Botha and Another v Adroit Communications (Pty) Ltd (21203/2014)

Botha and Another v Adroit Communications (Pty) Ltd (21203/2014) [2014] ZAGPPHC 385 (17 June 2014)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

21203/2014

Judge

Ismail

The High Court ordered Adroit Communications wound up on a just and equitable basis because of complete deadlock between directors and shareholders.

• Just And Equitable Winding Up
• Deadlock In Management
• Board Governance
• Shareholder Disputes
• Just-and-equitable-winding-up
• Board-deadlock

Langeni v SA Women & Mining Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd (SAWIMIH) (D633/11)

Langeni v SA Women & Mining Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd (SAWIMIH) (D633/11) [2011] ZALCD 27 (29 July 2011)

Court

Labour Court Durban

Case number

D633/11

Judge

Francis

The Labour Court struck an urgent application by a dismissed CEO from the roll, finding no adequate explanation for delay and no sufficient urgency.

• Urgent Application
• Unlawful Dismissal
• Procedural Fairness
• Fixed Term Contract
• Board Governance
• Urgent-application